Oh yes, I totally agree...

Rating: Null/10 (25 May 2003)

...of COURSE this film is a complete rip off of Resident Evil! Obviously Resident Evil is such a great film that the maker of Trainspotting has to plagiarise from it! hahahahahaha (spot the sarcasm)
Silliness aside, I think that any film that involves a small group of people being attacked by greater numbers of different people/undead/infected while the protagonists hide in a series of places or one specific place has any number of parallels with any number of previous films. The only difference is that somehow the horror audience is more prone to scream about it. If you're so hung up on this film being a rip off of Resident Evil or Dawn Of the Dead or The Omega Man then why don't you mention Assault On Precinct 13 too? Group of people, attacked by seemingly unstoppable enemies who'll stop at nothing to kill them? Come on, Assault on Precinct 13 was a remake of Rio Bravo crossed with Night Of The Living Dead, but let's not cry about it. Put your hankies away.
Moving onto a constructive criticism. POSSIBLE SPOILERS This film is designed to scare people. As someone who teaches Horror as part of a Media Studies course, I think that I'll use this film next year along with Nosferatu, Dracula (Universal), Dracula (Hammer), Psycho, Blacula, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Dawn Of The Dead, The Shining, Re-Animator, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Se7en and Scream.
I sense hands raising to faces, bacon sandwiches being dropped, and sharp intakes of breath. You demand an explanation, I'm sure, so let me elaborate. All of the films that I teach are relevant within the horror genre. They all represent certain times and places and attitudes. You can NEVER have a film that doesn't reflect times and places and attitudes. As the man once said, the past is a perfect looking glass to the present. Look at Nosferatu, Universal Dracula, Hammer Dracula, Blacula and Bram Stoker's Dracula. All inspired by the same text, but all very, VERY different. Society and technology make change inevitable. By this rationale, I'll use 28 Days Later as an example of a time and place. If I was to take a poll of the public in the UK about what scares them the most, I reckon that (although this is a wild guess), the following topics would be included.
* Catching a deadly disease (AIDS, possibly SARS, maybe CJD); an outbreak of a disease that there is no known cure for * Complete anarchy in place of society * Military taking over * Invasion of the home by 'undesirables' * Physical attack / rape / invasion of self * Destruction of the _chosen_ family unit * Complete loss of government OR power structure
With this in mind, look at the themes and plot twists in 28 Days Later. See how carefully they are tailored to a specifically contemporary audience (i.e. someone watching it today). So what if there are a couple of plat holes? Any one of the films that I already teach have plot holes. After watching the above films with a different group of 18 year olds (who are often initially under duress about wathing them) for three years on the trot, sometimes with two groups in a year, you realise that there aren't many films without plot holes. Look at the pros rather than the cons: what was achieved despite lack of budget. The effectiveness of the 'infected'. The 'nods' (not plagiarised, merely referenced) to previous films, showing a respect for the films that inspired it rather than a complete rip-off mentality (I refer specifically to the refuelling scene that strongly echoes Dawn Of The Dead, even down to the killing of a child). But the overall effectiveness of the film can't be denied - even the detractors from the film in this review section admit that there are moments of great power. Just try to look at it objectively. And if all else fails, remember that it's only a film. Don't take it to heart....it was all acted and directed and written....and actors, writers and directors are only human.